The owners.......

[coolhandfox]

Their good owners end of, we have continued on a upward projectory since they took over.

 

Have they made mistake, of course, they are human, just very rich ones.

[BoyJones]

2 hours ago, coolhandfox said:

Their good owners end of, we have continued on a upward projectory since they took over.

 

Have they made mistake, of course, they are human, just very rich ones.

Big mistake is Rudkin, I am not ITK so to speak, but have met him - he is not the man to take us forward - out of his depth and holding team back 

[HighPeakFox]

9 hours ago, BoyJones said:

Big mistake is Rudkin, I am not ITK so to speak, but have met him - he is not the man to take us forward - out of his depth and holding team back 

I mean no disrespect, and you may well be right in your assessment of the man, but what qualifies you to state this so confidently? 

[Voll Blau]

16 hours ago, Gerbold said:

Did I actually state that "they won us the league"? I'd prefer you to respond to my actual post and not mix your reply with those of others who have been hyperbolic in their praise. They landed on their feet because they were sensible (and humble) enough to take Pearson back. I hold that Pearson won us the league (and the team, of course) and that Ranieri's appointment  was fortuitous. The squad was already cast-iron tight - he creamed the cake with humour and bonhomie which defused the build-up of stress inevitable to a hard-run race.

As to the minimum requirement which you opine about - you've a short memory of the spivs who owned City who fell short of providing your minimum standards (and I include Mandaric in that list). The four who walked away with above a £1m apiece. The Sris are a breath of fresh air compared to them.

So there were unsuccessful spends but so what? There have been an equal number of positive hirings. I suspect that most of the clubs in the Premier have a 50-50 success rate.

The one statement you've made which is fair and which I've emboldened is that you've grudgingly acknowledged that the Thais are "generally good". The only way to avoid criticism (most criticism, anyway) is to constantly be striving to improve ones performance. I don't see anything in their commitment which is indicating they're losing interest in City.

I've questioned their choices but, in the light of the Premier title, it could be expected that there would be a loss of focus from everyone connected with the club. But would you bring anyone else in to own the club if you had the opportunity to make that choice?

 

 

I wasn't accusing you of that, but there have been some other posts in this thread to that effect.

 

I'm well aware of our ownership history, but like I've tried to say in a roundabout way, "spiv" owners shouldn't be the benchmark by which all football club owners who come above that standard are judged. The minimum standard expected of good owners should be the criteria I set out, which I've acknowledged the Thais have lived up to.

 

All I've really tried to say is they shouldn't be free from the same scrutiny people give everyone else involved with LCFC, but there seem to be a fair amount who think they should (again, I know that's not your personal standpoint).

 

As for "would I bring in anyone else?", I'd rather there was a different ownership model entirely for all clubs in England. But I'm a complete idealist, it'll never happen, and it's another debate for another day anyway I reckon. 

Edited 19 June 2018 by Voll Blau

[HighPeakFox]

6 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

As for "would I bring in anyone else?", I'd rather there was a different ownership model entirely for all clubs in England. But I'm a complete idealist, it'll never happen, and it's another debate for another day anyway I reckon. 

I think that's pretty much my position too.

[coolhandfox]

14 hours ago, BoyJones said:

Big mistake is Rudkin, I am not ITK so to speak, but have met him - he is not the man to take us forward - out of his depth and holding team back 

 

4 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

I mean no disrespect, and you may well be right in your assessment of the man, but what qualifies you to state this so confidently? 

 

 The only opinion I heard is from a friend of one of the local under 23 players, that he's not the nice bloke to deal with, however I don't think this is enough to make a judgement on. Its near on impossible for fans to have a judgement as it hard to now what his remit is, or what has been his doing.

 

I trust the owner to make the right decisions, few people become billionaires  without being good decision makers, if they want him in the post, that enough for me.

Edited 19 June 2018 by coolhandfox

[BoyJones]

7 hours ago, HighPeakFox said:

I mean no disrespect, and you may well be right in your assessment of the man, but what qualifies you to state this so confidently? 

I can't really tell you mate without betraying a confidence. Sorry should not have written earlier post. 

[GH1]

21 hours ago, Gerbold said:

Did I actually state that "they won us the league"? I'd prefer you to respond to my actual post and not mix your reply with those of others who have been hyperbolic in their praise. They landed on their feet because they were sensible (and humble) enough to take Pearson back. I hold that Pearson won us the league (and the team, of course) and that Ranieri's appointment  was fortuitous. The squad was already cast-iron tight - he creamed the cake with humour and bonhomie which defused the build-up of stress inevitable to a hard-run race.

As to the minimum requirement which you opine about - you've a short memory of the spivs who owned City who fell short of providing your minimum standards (and I include Mandaric in that list). The four who walked away with above a £1m apiece. The Sris are a breath of fresh air compared to them.

So there were unsuccessful spends but so what? There have been an equal number of positive hirings. I suspect that most of the clubs in the Premier have a 50-50 success rate.

The one statement you've made which is fair and which I've emboldened is that you've grudgingly acknowledged that the Thais are "generally good". The only way to avoid criticism (most criticism, anyway) is to constantly be striving to improve ones performance. I don't see anything in their commitment which is indicating they're losing interest in City.

I've questioned their choices but, in the light of the Premier title, it could be expected that there would be a loss of focus from everyone connected with the club. But would you bring anyone else in to own the club if you had the opportunity to make that choice?

 

 

Oh no, not more 'Pearson won us the league' rubbish. Pearson did a good job at City, got us up and got us out the mire (that he got us in by the way) Do you seriously believe we would have won the league with Pearson in charge? 

 

 Ranieri won us the league, in charge for all 38 wonderful games

[Guest Markyblue]

9 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

I wasn't accusing you of that, but there have been some other posts in this thread to that effect.

 

I'm well aware of our ownership history, but like I've tried to say in a roundabout way, "spiv" owners shouldn't be the benchmark by which all football club owners who come above that standard are judged. The minimum standard expected of good owners should be the criteria I set out, which I've acknowledged the Thais have lived up to.

 

All I've really tried to say is they shouldn't be free from the same scrutiny people give everyone else involved with LCFC, but there seem to be a fair amount who think they should (again, I know that's not your personal standpoint).

 

As for "would I bring in anyone else?", I'd rather there was a different ownership model entirely for all clubs in England. But I'm a complete idealist, it'll never happen, and it's another debate for another day anyway I reckon. 

 

Yes we should all own .1% of the club and have board meetings with 32000 people just like the old Soviet system because that worked well didn't it.

[Voll Blau]

15 minutes ago, Markyblue said:

Yes we should all own .1% of the club and have board meetings with 32000 people just like the old Soviet system because that worked well didn't it.

Yeah, that's definitely what I'd like to see. 

[Guest Markyblue]

6 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Yeah, that's definitely what I'd like to see. 

Joking apart the notion of collective ownership will always fail because people's minds will always work in different ways and unfortunately you need someone to take charge. The more voices involved the more nothing would ever get done not a brilliant system but it works to an extent. 

[The_77]

19 hours ago, BoyJones said:

I can't really tell you mate without betraying a confidence. Sorry should not have written earlier post. 

I have a girlfriend! She goes to a different school! 

[Guest Markyblue]

34 minutes ago, Gerbold said:

It would take a lot of explanation to persuade you that my hypothesis wasn't "rubbish", and that. on the contrary, the logic is inescapable. However I've spent enough time and posts on the subject and, judging by the dismissive language you use you are neither bright enough nor open enough to judge the evidence objectively. Much as I loved Claudio Ranieri, insofar as he acted as a 'buffer' for the team - gained City popularity amongst the media and took the 'heat' off them - the team were 'forged' by Pearson in the heat of adversity and probably would have come good with Mickey Mouse in the manager's chair.

If you want a discussion then couch your arguments respectfully and with evidence - otherwise don't respond to my posts.

Well your logic has escaped me as well it's a forum and your entitled to your view but to basically say Pearson won us the league and we probably would have won it with Mickey mouse in charge is quite frankly garbage. 

[GH1]

1 hour ago, Gerbold said:

It would take a lot of explanation to persuade you that my hypothesis wasn't "rubbish", and that. on the contrary, the logic is inescapable. However I've spent enough time and posts on the subject and, judging by the dismissive language you use you are neither bright enough nor open enough to judge the evidence objectively. Much as I loved Claudio Ranieri, insofar as he acted as a 'buffer' for the team - gained City popularity amongst the media and took the 'heat' off them - the team were 'forged' by Pearson in the heat of adversity and probably would have come good with Mickey Mouse in the manager's chair.

If you want a discussion then couch your arguments respectfully and with evidence - otherwise don't respond to my posts.

I didn't appreciate I was being disrespectful (its not like I inferred you weren't bright or anything as offensive as that) I just don't buy into that particular theory thats all. How can we know the level of involvement Ranieri had in shaping the way we played each game.

 

If the logic is incapable as to Pearsons genius I am surprised by his current employment status

[murphy]

12 hours ago, GH1 said:

I didn't appreciate I was being disrespectful (its not like I inferred you weren't bright or anything as offensive as that) I just don't buy into that particular theory thats all. How can we know the level of involvement Ranieri had in shaping the way we played each game.

 

If the logic is incapable as to Pearsons genius I am surprised by his current employment status

Personally I think we would not have won the league with Pearson in charge.  That said, we have to acknowledge his huge contribution in building the team and ethos that did win it.  We would probably have gone into that season with wing backs a la great escape instead of this 'rope a dope' system of two narrow banks of four waiting to spring the counter.  Who actually came up with that?  Did we stumble upon it or was it CR or possibly the unfairly maligned Craig Shakespeare?

 

I have often heard that season referred to as the 'perfect storm' and I agree with that.  It is like dropping a deck of cards and seeing them all land face down.  I think that if any of the many, many variables hadn't happened just so we would have had a different outcome.

 

IMO, we wouldn't have won it with Pearson but we certainly couldn't have won it without him.

 

Edit - back on topic - The league is littered with terrible owners.  I think we won the football owner lottery when the Thais came in.

Edited 21 June 2018 by murphy

[Guest Markyblue]

As a huge fan of the Nigel I would never question his huge contribution to the success of our football club. Did he contribute to the league win of course he did but he wasn't in charge when we won it so it's not his title. The Mickey mouse comment I see as an insult to the man who did see us home and from someone who normally talks sense like yourself was cheap and wrong.

[gw_leics772]

@Gerbold, you seem a little angrier than usual today, choosing to take offence where none appears to be intended. Just a difference of opinion. 

 

Anything we can do to help?

[turtmcfly]

35 minutes ago, Gerbold said:

You chose to "rubbish" what I stated -  so don't be surprised if I respond in kind.

Are you aware of what my theory is - if so, you'll be able to counter it with refutation on similar lines - counter-theory or critique of my theory.

We can't know the level at which Ranieri's tactics influenced the team - yet that team was 'fully-forged' under Pearson, had already established a pattern of play and a team elan.

I don't believe any manager (bar Ferguson) could have held on to the tiger that was released once they'd won so I acknowledged and regretted the adverse situation he found himself in. But all that talk of player-power influencing the situation indicated to me that they were first-and-foremost Pearson's men. Their ability to bring the club back from the brink of relegation (seemingly at will) also indicates they were operating semi-independently of any manager.

You know why Pearson was fired, I assume. So "genius" or not his dismissal had nothing to do with his competence at the job.

I apologise for meeting disrespect with disrespect.

A pattern of play which involved using wing-backs. Ranieri changed that after the Arsenal game. Assuming Mickey Mouse had been brought in before the season started, and assuming all the results up to and including that game had stayed the same (I can't believe I typed that, or I'm typing what follows) you're asserting that Mickey too would have switched to traditional full backs. Whereas I reckon he'd have been alternating between shrugging his shoulders and sniffing Minnie's bike saddle.

[Mark 'expert' Lawrenson]

The owners, the team, Pearson, Claudio, everything fell into place to create the unlikeliest title win in Premiership history and before that, credit goes to all, everybody played their part.

[gw_leics772]

1 hour ago, turtmcfly said:

Whereas I reckon he'd have been alternating between shrugging his shoulders and sniffing Minnie's bike saddle.

And he's back in the room.

 

Welcome back @Gerbold.  It was touch and go there for a while.

 

(I nearly spilt my tea through my nose on that one.)

[turtmcfly]

1 minute ago, gw_leics772 said:

And he's back in the room.

 

Welcome back @Gerbold.  It was touch and go there for a while.

 

(I nearly spilt my tea through my nose on that one.)

I'm torn between pointing out I wrote that and letting Gerbold take the shit for it...

[gw_leics772]

41 minutes ago, turtmcfly said:

I'm torn between pointing out I wrote that and letting Gerbold take the shit for it...

Hahaha. Total fail. I'm giving up interacting with anyone for today. ?

 

My first one of the day was rushing in to my wife asking where such and such is. Answer - in your hand! I've had better days.

Edited 21 June 2018 by gw_leics772

[HighPeakFox]

Can I just indulge you all and point out that 'to imply' and 'to infer' DON'T MEAN THE SAME THING.

 

Thank you. @Gerbold, hang your head in shame, man

 

[FoyleFox]

10 hours ago, Mark 'expert' Lawrenson said:

The owners, the team, Pearson, Claudio, everything fell into place to create the unlikeliest title win in Premiership history and before that, credit goes to all, everybody played their part.

I'll give them all due credit and forever be grateful for the greatest season ever witnessed as a Leicester fan. 

[Babylon]

19 hours ago, turtmcfly said:

A pattern of play which involved using wing-backs. Ranieri changed that after the Arsenal game. Assuming Mickey Mouse had been brought in before the season started, and assuming all the results up to and including that game had stayed the same (I can't believe I typed that, or I'm typing what follows) you're asserting that Mickey too would have switched to traditional full backs. Whereas I reckon he'd have been alternating between shrugging his shoulders and sniffing Minnie's bike saddle.

Well Pearson bought a new full back in Fuchs, a DM, a defensive 10. Even before he was sacked, it looked quite obvious to me that he was attempting to fix the problems that meant we weren't getting results in his favoured formation and caused the switch to a three at the back in the first place. He was a 442 man, always had been. With Fuchs signing it looked like he realised Schlupp certainly wasn't the long term answer.